Posted on 04/14/2016 6:55:31 PM PDT by ebb tide
I presume you are one who, in the past, has defended the concept of the Pope exercising, in effect, monarchical authority.
If so, what does it matter what "many synod fathers" opposed, or even "vigorously" opposed?
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/74-infallability-of-canonizations.html
“Remember, the canonization of a saint means two things: that the person is among the blessed in heaven and that they possess virtues that are worthy of imitation; i.e., they are a role model”
You are opining that the pope was wrong regarding the second meaning/reason for a canonization.
That’s what I meant.
But only with regard to the Papacy. I think Wojtyla was grossly negligent with respect to the appointment of bishops, and the removal of bishops. Weakland, for instance. And Matthew Clark. And Hunthausen.
And religious orders. He treated even the most vicious, pro-abortion nuns with kid gloves.
And theologians. Only the two or three absolutely most monstrous were ever touched.
How many times under Wojtyla was there an “investigation,” followed by...NOTHING.
But I have no doubt he was a holy man, a mystic, a saint.
Despite his public, on-going non-Catholic ecumenical scandals like Assisi? Really?
Despite his public, on-going non-Catholic ecumenical scandals like Assisi? Really?
Assisi is another reason I don’t think he should have been canonized. It was a scandal.
You SEEM to be saying that he is damned because of Assisi, and therefore should not have been canonized.
Many saints have been creatures of their environment, and have made grievous errors in judgment.
Wojtyla refused to believe that priests could abuse children. He refused to believe anything he heard about Maciel. He refused to believe a Cardinal could lie to him. And there’s Assisi.
I think all of these things are reasons he should not have been canonized.
You SEEM to be arguing, once again, that he is probably damned, and that THAT is why he should not have been canonized.
I am not talking about where JPII is or is not. I am still trying to figure out how a Catholic (you) can disagree with (what you consider) a true pope’s choice for canonization.
In addition your words seem to contradict themselves. On the one hand you say JPII was a holy man, but on the other hand you recognize the horror that was Assisi. Perhaps the issue is that you seem to think Assisi was merely an “error in judgment” when in reality JPII was showing and teaching the world what Vatican II meant by “ecumenism”.
You presume wrongly.
The word “disagree” is ambiguous.
Being a Catholic, I am NOT free to “disagree” with any canonization on the grounds that the declaration that so-and-so is in Heaven is false.
I CAN “disagree” with a canonization on the grounds that the person canonized did some things that should not be imitated. E.g., Assisi, the appointment of a lot of bad bishops, failure to correct or remove bad bishops.
At the time of JPII’s canonization, it was made clear that canonization is not an endorsement of every aspect of the Papacy of JPII. But I have noticed repeatedly, that when people cite one of his documents, they emphasize that he is a canonized saint. They are muddying an important distinction.
This is interesting given it highly unlikely that Francis would have canonized him if he weren't pope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.